We should just repost Iron Fist's comment from yesterday and be done with it.

Iron Fist's words of (non-Latina) wisdom:

Let me predict. She'll say nothing of significance and no one will ask her anything of significance. Just like yesterday.

Painful and boring

Why do they even bother with these any more? The only saving grace is that I don't have to watch these *ssclowns preen for the camera. Both sides of the aisle, no love for any of these cats any more.

The GOP has shot itself in the foot yet again, by focusing on single sentences taken out of context in a foolish attempt to paint her as a “racist” or an “extremist.”

I couldn't agree more.

Senators are out-talking Sotomayor 2 to 1.

According to an unofficial word count, these guys are out-talking the nominee. Better than two senatorial words for each one of hers after only two days. And that was before Arlen Specter opened his mouth for questions.

As of Wednesday morning, the senators had spouted 50,082 words. In response Judge Sotomayor had been able to utter barely 20,000 words (20,728, to be exact).

Monday was the worst day: senators 23,175, Sotomayor 942.

Some "hearing." Maybe they ought to call it a "talking."

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Painful and boring

And that's the good parts!

The GOP has shot itself in the foot yet again, by focusing on single sentences taken out of context in a foolish attempt to paint her as a “racist” or an “extremist.”

Regrettably, shooting themselves in the foot has become such a habit for the Republicans that if they managed to go a week without doing it, their feet would miss the ordnance, and wonder what was wrong.

Only 2 to 1? It feels like more...

Republicans need to focus on core conservative fiscal values and drop the dog and pony show.

here's a photo of Judge Sotomayor before she changed careers

Image: roseanne_barr_national_anthem.jpg

GOP senators have a duty to bring up whatever they can find against her nomination. They did their best, and either it wasn't good enough, or there was nothing there to 'find'. We shouldn't blame them for trying though.

According to an unofficial word count, these guys are out-talking the nominee.

I'm not surprised, but I'm tickled by that.

re: #7 Charles

Senators are out-talking Sotomayor 2 to 1.

Some "hearing." Maybe they ought to call it a "talking."

They have all decided what they're going to do. This hearing is indeed simply a "talking", with each Senator talking to his/her constituents, not Sotomayor.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

The biggest problem is that her testimony now about not being an activist judge -- or a biased judge -- contradicts her unambiguous speeches from before. If she were a trial witness, those contradictions would be sufficient for a conclusion that she's untrustworthy. But the Senate appears willing to accept her current statements. They're not naive. I suspect that everyone knows the actual situation, but we're going to end up with her anyway.

Yup, Republicans can't even generate enough energy to Bork a politically correct SC nominee. Hell, Democrats can do it with their hands tied behind their back and come back for more.

Vote, get it done with, confirm her and then we all should hope and pray for the health of the good guys still on the SC bench.

re: #13 fooburger

GOP senators have a duty to bring up whatever they can find against her nomination. They did their best, and either it wasn't good enough, or there was nothing there to 'find'. We shouldn't blame them for trying though.

I agree that it is the duty of the opposition to oppose. But not just for the sake of it. The fact is, they have very little. They need choose battles more wisely.

re: #7 Charles

Senators are out-talking Sotomayor 2 to 1.

There's enough hot air in the Senate to heat homes in the northern tier of states throughout the entire winter.
Pity we can't harness it though.

re: #7 Charles

Senators are out-talking Sotomayor 2 to 1.

The Senators get paid big bucks to bloviate.

In her own words.

re: #7 Charles

Senators are out-talking Sotomayor 2 to 1.

It's political theatre- they're the stars and she's making a special appearance.

re: #22 jcm

The Senators get paid big bucks to bloviate.

Maybe we pay them too much to do so.

re: #7 Charles

Let's not forget that the Dems did the same to Alito and Roberts.
It's what ploiticians do.

The Repubs early on decided that they had no chance whatsoever of derailing Sotomayor's confirmation, and instead decided to make her Senatorial questioning a 'teaching moment.'

They have indeed succeeded in doing that, but the lesson we are drawing from their performance is far removed from what they intended or desired.

I haven't watched more than 5 minutes of it.

But I can guess how it all went down

Pontification by each and every senator
evasive answers by the candidate
softball questions by the dems

and in the end it doesn't matter.
Her approval was a done deal from the start, and looking at who Obama could have chosen : The GOP ought to be glad they are getting Sotomayor

but that's just my take having tried my best to avoid the whole circus

re: #6 buzzsawmonkey

That's exhausting!

re: #7 Charles

Senators are out-talking Sotomayor 2 to 1.

Not a suprise there. All these hearings end up more about them sermonizing and droning on rather than the issue at hand.

re: #23 MandyManners

In her own words.

what a bimbo...hardly what I consider judicial...I don't know why people will not accept the fact that she is lying in these hearings

and I forgot : "the Richness of her Life Story"

Has the Court's ruling on Roe ended the controversy? What a stupid question!

re: #24 Sharmuta

It's political theatre- they're the stars and she's making a special appearance.

Well, it's getting no ratings from my house or computer. I refuse to watch sketch comedy that doesn't even measure up to the standards of Saturday Night Live, and believe me, those are pretty low.

But, what about Michael Jackson? Is he still dead?

re: #34 Sharmuta

Has the Court's ruling on Roe ended the controversy? What a stupid question!

What poor excuse for Jabba the Hutt asked that question?

re: #36 Gang of One

But, what about Michael Jackson? Is he still dead?

As dead as Francisco Franco.

Like it or not, it is clear that Sotomayor is a good candidate for SCOTUS, as were Roberts and Alito.

The Republicans, just like the Democrats before them, have managed to make themselves look foolish.

In other words, business on the Hill as usual.

You know, an expression I think is funny is "the right to self-defense." I mean, I'm gonna defend myself, period. Their laws only govern how I deal with them.

re: #36 Gang of One

But, what about Michael Jackson? Is he still dead?

Depends on what the definition of "is" is.

re: #13 fooburger

Their duty is: "Advise and Consent!" ( Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, which provides that the President of the United States "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consults, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States...")

Since Ted Kennedy/Bork, the process has gone off the skids. Last night, Dennis Miller compared the "mind numbing" process to coverage of Charles Manson's prison transfer. Such a charade.

re: #36 Gang of One

But, what about Michael Jackson? Is he still dead?

Nope, they're going to rebuild him. We have the technology. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster.

Hey y'all - someone posted something on the DT about Sotomayor's rather confused and confusing answers about self-defense and a Right to self-defense (may have been in the context of the 2nd Amendment) but she was clearly bobbing and weaving on a "Right" to self-defense which, iirc, has existed in common law since before we were an independent nation.
But other than that, Charles is right in one respect: the GOP has nothing on her and I can't imagine anything they could have on her that would defeat her nomination.
As to whether or not she's a "racist" or "extremist" we won't know until she's actually seated as a Justice of the Supreme Court. As a District Court Judge and as Chief Judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals she was bound by precedent, and even there she sometimes "misread" the precedent. On SCOTUS she can try to create precedent.
It is worth noting, however, that in the Ricci v New Haven case (btw is Frank Ricci going to testify today, does anyone know?) while four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court ultimately dissented from the majority's opinion, ALL NINE of the Justices of the SCOTUS castigated the way she handled the case (I'm hoping lawhawk will show up, he has the links for that and I keep forgetting to bookmark or heart them). Methinks when she is a Justice, she will be dramatically out front about and in favor of Affirmative Action.
And as I've said many times before, if certain groups or classes of "minorities" (ironically, white men are numerically a minority but not so classified by the law!) needed special help in education and the opportunity for employment I was in favor of it, but since Affirmative Action does in fact discriminate on the basis of a person's race, gender, age, sexual preferences, religious preferances and the like, I think Affirmative Action is morally wrong. NO ONE SHOULD BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE, GENDER, AGE ETC. Period.

our Senate...engaged in one of the most important jobs they are mandated with and it's just a self serving spectacle...I do not or ever will trust these people

re: #44 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Nope, they're going to rebuild him. We have the technology. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster.

Darth Jackson.

Oh, goodie- Senator Diaper Ass is coming up.

re: #39 Honorary Yooper

As dead as Francisco Franco.

That is the top story tonight, yes?

I don't think the Republicans shot themselves in the foot. Sotomayor has made a number of comments in speeches that required examination. I do think that Graham was absolutely dead on when he said, had he made the same comment as her "wise Latina" remark, he would be history. This is a disparity that concerns me greatly.

I haven't seen her family attacked. I haven't seen her referred to as slutty. I haven't seen the cost of her wardrobe questioned, despite her record for having a temperment issue on the bench, I haven't seen her being called a drama queen or mocked endlessly on SNL. No, I think, in general, she has had it pretty easy.

re: #7 Charles
Well hell, Charles, they are after all politicians, what do you expect? Talking is what they do the most of and are fondest of.
And forget Specter, Shumer is the really talkative one!

I don't think the GOP shot itself in the foot over the "Latina" comment, but they haven't exactly distinguished themselves by these hearings either. That was never the point, and that Senators out talk the nominee 2-1 shows that this is never about the nominee and his or her views, but the Senators ability to expound and puff before the cameras.

Sotomayor will not get a chance to talk because the Senators are doing all the talking for her.

It's disgraceful really, but this is the way confirmations are done. The GOP could have figured out other avenues to question Sotomayor, but there weren't many to begin with outside the Ricci case. They were left with little on which to vet Sotomayor.

re: #48 Sharmuta

Oh, goodie- Senator Diaper Ass is coming up.

"Diaper Ass"? I have this vision of a giant baby as Senator, but then again, aren't they all?

re: #9 Salamantis

Regrettably, shooting themselves in the foot has become such a habit for the Republicans that if they managed to go a week without doing it, their feet would miss the ordnance, and wonder what was wrong.

"READY, FIRE, AIM"

re: #53 Honorary Yooper

"Diaper Ass"? I have this vision of a giant baby as Senator, but then again, aren't they all?

Some are bigger asses than others.

re: #16 MandyManners

Sotomayor answered, “I --- as I said, I don’t know.”

Translation: "And, if I did, I would not tell you!" (running the clock out)

Nightmare on First Street, Part 4
How many sequels will they make of this horror movie?
I'm tired of it already.

re: #5 Sharmuta

I have to disagree strongly that the GOP has 'shot itself in the foot.' There haven't been any gaffes, insults, or other nasty comments. Instead, there has been a long series of, well, generally meaningless questions and answers.

But, and this part is important, Sotomayor has largely had to reject President Obama's theory of judging, by explicitly denying his empathy standard. She has had to give considerable reassurances that she does respect law and precedent. She has, in short, had to stand by her generally acceptable judicial record, and deny the speeches and talks she's given.

Look, just given the numbers, there was never any way the GOP would have stopped her nomination anyway. Given that, I think they've put on a pretty decent show, and also laid markers that should help if President Obama tries to nominate someone more radical next time. They're in the minority - very seriously so - but this time around, they did what a minority party should. Kudos to them.

re: #45 realwest

Hey y'all - someone posted something on the DT about Sotomayor's rather confused and confusing answers about self-defense and a Right to self-defense (may have been in the context of the 2nd Amendment) but she was clearly bobbing and weaving on a "Right" to self-defense which, iirc, has existed in common law since before we were an independent nation.

She was not asked about it existing in common law, but if it was spelled out in the constitution.

"Coburn also asked about Sotomayor’s views on the Second Amendment, going beyond her work on the court to question whether she believes there’s a constitutional right to self-defense.

Sotomayor said self-defense is typically defined by state laws and she couldn’t think of a specific Supreme Court case or federal law that defined self-defense."

re: #59 Iron Fist

She's still going to be confirmed. I don't have to like it. It is just what is going to happen.

Did you see my post last night regarding My "Cato" mistake?

re: #59 Iron Fist

She's still going to be confirmed. I don't have to like it. It is just what is going to happen.

Agreed. There's far worse things to worry about than her confirmation.

BTW, what about Michael Jackson?
/

9-0 against Sotomayor. None of the justices thought she and the 2d Circuit acted appropriately in the case procedurally, even if the dissent ultimately sided with Sotomayor.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

re: #64 lawhawk

9-0 against Sotomayor. None of the justices thought she and the 2d Circuit acted appropriately in the case procedurally, even if the dissent ultimately sided with Sotomayor.

"Doesn't matter. We won. Fuck off now".
*Zero and the douchebag dems

Sotomayor's stance on the 2nd Admendment--i.e., that it doesn't apply to states--bothers me the most. Is that the only admendment that doesn't apply to states? Can any given state suspend my right to trial by jury? Can a state interfere with freedom of the press? Freedom of religion?

Her argument doesn't hold water...

re: #7 Charles

Senators are out-talking Sotomayor 2 to 1.

Heh.

re: #63 Honorary Yooper

BTW, what about Michael Jackson?/

Dead./

re: #67 VegasRick

"Doesn't matter. We won. Fuck off now".
*Zero and the Douchebag Dems

Sounds like a song from a new rock band.

re: #66 buzzsawmonkey

"Damn. Thought we'd shredded all the copies of that one."

No need to shred it, just "tweek it" a bit...you know, it's a living, breathing document, subject to the times. The old dead white guys that wrote this lived in another time, we have to look at this from our time...so, nothing in there is really off limits...it depends how you see it today.

/

re: #67 VegasRick

Zero = "Iwon Obeyme!"

re: #73 Picayune

Zero = "Iwon Obeyme!"

Obi Won Kenyobi

re: #50 WinterCat
Hey WinterCat - you still don't get it do you? The Democrats Leftists went for 8 years (with Bush as President) doing nothing but complaining. They offered NO positive positions or actions (although I suppose if you opposed the War in Iraq, opposing that would be "positive"). And in 2008, although the Leftists already controlled Congress, they managed to pick up the White House and bigger majorities in the House and the Senate.
But when it comes to Republicans, we're supposed to do more than bitch and moan. And I don't see why; assuming that the Republicans want to regain SOME of the power of the Federal Government, I think their following the successful lead of the Leftist Party makes sense. It's not good for the country, but no one said that very often about the Leftist Party when it was "out of power" either.

re: #56 Picayune

Sotomayor answered, “I --- as I said, I don’t know.”

Translation: "And, if I did, I would not tell you!" (running the clock out)

A complete distortion of her testimony about a constitutional right to self defense. She gave a long and detailed reply.

Although I agree with Charles (the "wise Latina" quote was a tactic that was a predictive failure), this is recoverable (for Republicans). Bring back the party of adults and show the Democrats the B.S. that has been going on during confirmation hearings (in the last 30-some years) is complete non-sense.

I'd would love to see a stake stuck in the ground: SC confirmation hearings will never be conducted this way again, we do our homework on the nominee before hand, we interview them in private, and then call a vote.

But I doubt that will happen for one reason: they want to have the ability to crush President Obama's next pick. Although I understand the reasons (politics being part, but not simply that), I can only wish Republicans will take a "losing situation" (I don't really think this is losing, but let's call it that) and turn it into a renewed pattern of behavior from a party that should be more consistently competent than we have seen in the last decade or two.

re: #74 LGoPs

Obi Won Kenyobi

a Zimbabweist

re: #73 Picayune

Zero = "Iwon Obeyme!"

Kneel!

re: #50 WinterCat

I don't think the Republicans shot themselves in the foot. Sotomayor has made a number of comments in speeches that required examination. I do think that Graham was absolutely dead on when he said, had he made the same comment as her "wise Latina" remark, he would be history. This is a disparity that concerns me greatly.

I haven't seen her family attacked. I haven't seen her referred to as slutty. I haven't seen the cost of her wardrobe questioned, despite her record for having a temperment issue on the bench, I haven't seen her being called a drama queen or mocked endlessly on SNL. No, I think, in general, she has had it pretty easy.

Well said. Bravo.

re: #68 slartybartfast

Sotomayor's stance on the 2nd Admendment--i.e., that it doesn't apply to states--bothers me the most. Is that the only admendment that doesn't apply to states? Can any given state suspend my right to trial by jury? Can a state interfere with freedom of the press? Freedom of religion?

Her argument doesn't hold water...

It's the way the second amendment stands in the law today. It's application to the states has never been ruled on by the SC, they keep side stepping the issue.

re: #79 Iron Fist

I got your post. Thanx.

Cool.

re: #64 lawhawk Ah, to my rescue in my #45, thank you lawhawk!

Wasn't this the same show that was on yesterday? It's like a bad remake with bad actors.

Sigh. The pity is that everyone has a role to play in this farce and they have an audience to which they have to pander. The real shame is that the audience is too damned ignorant/stupid to appreciate what it is they're watching.

The missing point in all the analysis is this: Barry is a leftist radical - that is undeniable. To believe that he would nominate a moderate judge is the absolute height of naivete. Her Latina comment has been used by her so often that it cannot be "taken out of context" and to keep saying that is what's silly.

re: #80 legalpad

Kneel!

/rips off shirt

"ADORE ME!"

re: #83 Ackomanyuki

She has no business being a Federal District judge let alone an appellate or supreme. Here perspicacity should have limited her to legal aid counsel in Harlem. Praise be to affirmative action and the guilt and intimidation it engenders

That it simply ridiculous, even the Republicans don't question her qualifications as a jurist. The affirmative action, Harlem comment smacks of racism.
She excelled in law school, and even those that don't like her politics, respect her abilities.

re: #81 buzzsawmonkey

Seriously, for a moment, my problem with your statement above is that deep down everyone believes the Constitution is a living, breathing document, subject to the times. That's why nobody, left or right, would seriously argue that confining people to the stocks or the pillory or the rack, or breaking them on the wheel, would not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

It's not that the strictures of the Constitution don't alter with the times. It's that some people want to alter them with the times in ways which play merry hell with the principles enunciated there.

I think of The Constitution like science: We merely discover what our natural rights are. They do not decide which ones are appropriate for us. Their power comes from us, not the other way around.

re: #84 avanti

It's the way the second amendment stands in the law today. It's application to the states has never been ruled on by the SC, they keep side stepping the issue.

right...states, then cities, then counties...how can such a simple concept be so twisted?...citizens have the right to bear arms, period...how that notion "applies to states" is a construed dodge cooked up by liberal gun haters

re: #53 Honorary Yooper

"Diaper Ass"? I have this vision of a giant baby as Senator, but then again, aren't they all?

This one really IS!

re: #89 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

/rips off shirt

"ADORE ME!"

I keep saying that but everyone ignores me.
/

OT...

Zelaya calls for Civil War to reinstate him.

"We are giving the coup regime an ultimatum," Zelaya said

re: #76 avanti

A complete distortion of her testimony about a constitutional right to self defense. She gave a long and detailed reply.

She could not answer a simple common law and Constitutional question.

Is there a right to self defense?

She got bogged down in the parameters of the exercise of self defense.

There is a big difference. She couldn't answer the questions she was asked and ducked, dodge and weaved into a thicket of the how states and local jurisdictions determine the proper use of the right of self defense.

re: #84 avanti

My point is: Sotomayor seems to imply that the Bill o' Rights is intended only to apply to the Federal Gov't. The states can do whatever they want w/o regard to those fundamental rights.

Meanwhile, I thought the SC dealt with at least one citywide handgun ban.

re: #68 slartybartfast Ah well, as much as I think the Bill of Rights should apply to the States the United States Supreme Court has, once again, disagreed with me. But, the 14th Amendment did indeed extend SOME of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to State Governmental action.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #92 avanti

That it simply ridiculous, even the Republicans don't question her qualifications as a jurist. The affirmative action, Harlem comment smacks of racism.
She excelled in law school, and even those that don't like her politics, respect her abilities.

problem is she is a flaming liar

re: #83 Ackomanyuki

She has no business being a Federal District judge let alone an appellate or supreme. Here perspicacity should have limited her to legal aid counsel in Harlem. Praise be to affirmative action and the guilt and intimidation it engenders

Nonsense. She has been vetted multiple times, and has shown herself to be a very qualified jurist. Affirmative action has nothing to do with this. Comments like that do damage to the rest of us.

re: #97 jcm

OT...

Zelaya calls for Civil War to reinstate him.

She could not answer a simple common law and Constitutional question.

Is there a right to self defense?

Where is the "right to self defense" in the Constitution?

re: #83 Ackomanyuki

And your opinions are based on what? Have you read her opinions? Have you read any thing she has written? Do you know what it takes to be a jurist?

Seriously, there's a quite a few conclusions in your statement, but little to support them.

re: #91 Iron Fist

Dude, I ate you up on that.

Review the Ninth Circuit Court of Apppeals.

I not said the SC had avoided the issue, not the various appeals courts that have ruled both ways. Read Heller and show where the DC law ruling was applied to the states.
If you were correct, why are states gun restriction laws still pending before the SC ?

this is exactly the point I’ve been making in these threads. There’s nothing in Sotomayor’s record that indicates she has ever tried to legislate from the bench, and her decisions fall squarely in the center, politically; leaning left on some things, right on others. The GOP has shot itself in the foot yet again, by focusing on single sentences taken out of context in a foolish attempt to paint her as a “racist” or an “extremist.”

This is the truth about the Sotomayor nomination.

BTW, it's true that the GOP is shooting itself in the foot (and then the other foot) by focussing on sentences taken out of context. The other uncomfortable truth is that by trying so desperately to paint this centrist as an extremist, the GOP is painting itself into a corner.

The GOP is coming out of this looking like the real fools, and looking like the real extremists and racists. And they're alienating the Hispanic vote as well, for no good purpose, given that Sotomayor WILL BE confirmed.

Uncomfortable truths for the GOP, but there it is.

re: #96 legalpad

I keep saying that but everyone ignores me.
/

It comes down to three things

1) Timing
2) Location
3) Good quality skin Bronzer

re: #76 avanti

You miss the point - her strategy is to say the least she can, and run the clock to affirmation. Word count is the theme of this thread, no?

As to her answer, it was so nuanced it precluded a Yes or No response. This is the same sophistry employed by Iwon Obeyme and all the other Ivy League trained attorneys that are so busy bringing us their Change, these days.

Average American voters appreciate a simple Yes or No answer from someone being vetted for a life time appointment to the highest Court in the Nation.

re: #104 avanti

I not said the SC had avoided the issue, not the various appeals courts that have ruled both ways. Read Heller and show where the DC law ruling was applied to the states.
If you were correct, why are states gun restriction laws still pending before the SC ?

I think Heller has a footnote (26?) indicating that the decision did not apply to the States. d.c. is a special case. I could be completely wrong. This is off the cuff and I dont have the case in front of me.

re: #102 Charles

Where is the "right to self defense" in the Constitution?

2nd amendment - "bear" arms.

The GOP has shot itself in the foot yet again, by focusing on single sentences taken out of context in a foolish attempt to paint her as a “racist” or an “extremist.”

I don't think the quote is out of context, but otherwise I agree. I don't believe she is either a racist or extremist, but she does seem to believe that her job does go somewhat beyond just interpreting the law and Constitution as written or intended. This is a philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives, but does not put her "outside the mainstream."

I would rather see another Roberts or Alito, but Obama isn't going to appoint anyone like that.

re: #99 realwest

Just a smidge. That pesky "incorporation clause" thingy is SUCH a bother.

re: #109 legalpad

2nd amendment - "bear" arms.

The 2nd Amendment does not say one word about a "right to self defense."

re: #98 SlartyBartfast

My point is: Sotomayor seems to imply that the Bill o' Rights is intended only to apply to the Federal Gov't. The states can do whatever they want w/o regard to those fundamental rights.

Meanwhile, I thought the SC dealt with at least one citywide handgun ban.

Exactly, they dealt with one cities ban, with the narrow ruling that applied only to that city. They could have easily spoken clearly that cities and states can't restrict gun ownership in any manner, but chose not to.

re: #109 legalpad

2nd amendment - "bear" arms.

Worlds greatest typo. Talk about unintended consequences. America was liberalizing at the time, throwing off the yolk of oppression. They wanted the right to BARE arms. Hundreds of years later, here we are arguing about it./

Also not specifically delineated in the Constitution: rights to travel, fair trial, marriage, procreation, voting, and more. Luckily there's that Ninth Amendment wild card.

re: #109 legalpad

2nd amendment - "bear" arms.

And the right to arm bears! (I like a level playing field)//

re: #81 buzzsawmonkey

Seriously, for a moment, my problem with your statement above is that deep down everyone believes the Constitution is a living, breathing document, subject to the times. That's why nobody, left or right, would seriously argue that confining people to the stocks or the pillory or the rack, or breaking them on the wheel, would not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

It's not that the strictures of the Constitution don't alter with the times. It's that some people want to alter them with the times in ways which play merry hell with the principles enunciated there.

Yes, the flexibility of our Constitution is what has made it stand for so long. But, more than that, the simplicity of stated rights the government cannot take away is more important. When one party, left or right, decides to take the original intent of one of those rights and alter the meaning to fit into their own agendas, that is when the flexibility of the Constitution is not so good. The right has done it, but for the past 60+ years, the left has slowly eroded the meaning and intention of many of those rights...and added some "rights" by court orders and decisions that do not even exist in the Constitution. The proclivity of the left to use the courts to alter our society in a way they see fit scares the hell out of me.

re: #109 legalpad

2nd amendment - "bear" arms.

I've known a lot of people that have "alligator" arms.

re: #112 Charles

The 2nd Amendment does not say one word about a "right to self defense."

Of course. That's just an interpretation of what "bear" means. I don't think it means just haul them around.

re: #114 Creeping Eruption

They should have called it the right to be "fabulous" and have been done with it./

re: #114 Creeping Eruption

Worlds greatest typo. Talk about unintended consequences. America was liberalizing at the time, throwing off the yolk of oppression. They wanted the right to BARE arms. Hundreds of years later, here we are arguing about it./

I thought the idea was to arm bears. If polar bears were armed they could fight off the effects of global warming...
/

re: #102 Charles

Where is the "right to self defense" in the Constitution?

Conversely, where is the section denying the right to self defense in the Constitution.

re: #116 calcajun

And the right to arm bears! (I like a level playing field)//

Bears are armed, believe me. Try taking one out with a bow and arrow.

re: #122 LGoPs

I thought the idea was to arm bears. If polar bears were armed they could fight off the effects of global warming...
/

See! Look at all the confusion. Ambiguity . . a judges delight.

re: #109 legalpad

2nd amendment - "bear" arms.

The 2d Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is separate and distinct from the right of self defense, which is a common law concept. There is overlap between the two, since you can use firearms as self defense but there is no right to self defense in the US Constitution.

re: #116 calcajun

And the right to arm bears! (I like a level playing field)//

Acknowledging that you beat me to it...
:)

re: #124 legalpad

Bears are armed, believe me. Try taking one out with a bow and arrow.

I had a guy who used to work for me who saved all his money to take two weeks out west to bow-hunt bears. He thought hunters that used rifles were pussies.

re: #107 Picayune

You miss the point - her strategy is to say the least she can, and run the clock to affirmation. Word count is the theme of this thread, no?

As to her answer, it was so nuanced it precluded a Yes or No response. This is the same sophistry employed by Iwon Obeyme and all the other Ivy League trained attorneys that are so busy bringing us their Change, these days.

Average American voters appreciate a simple Yes or No answer from someone being vetted for a life time appointment to the highest Court in the Nation.

Finally we agree. Every nominee that comes up should know to never made a black/white, yes/no answer and talk as little as possible if you don't want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

re: #113 avanti

re: #98 SlartyBartfast

My point is: Sotomayor seems to imply that the Bill o' Rights is intended only to apply to the Federal Gov't. The states can do whatever they want w/o regard to those fundamental rights.

Meanwhile, I thought the SC dealt with at least one citywide handgun ban.

Exactly, they dealt with one cities ban, with the narrow ruling that applied only to that city. They could have easily spoken clearly that cities and states can't restrict gun ownership in any manner, but chose not to.

Your point is well taken. However, you still haven't touched my "slippery slope" argument regarding the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

re: #126 lawhawk

The 2d Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is separate and distinct from the right of self defense, which is a common law concept. There is overlap between the two, since you can use firearms as self defense but there is no right to self defense in the US Constitution.

But there is an implied ability to target practice.

re: #119 buzzsawmonkey

Well, yes...but the thing is that while their power comes from us, we then give them the permission to implement that power on our behalf.

So you get a sort of Six Flags Moebius Strip Ride in which they implement our power under the permission we've given them, and they get it right some of the time and monumentally wrong the rest of the time.

And if they do anything we don't much like we vote them out. If that doesn't do it, then - see the Declaration of Independence.

re: #124 legalpad

Thank, you. No. I mean, if you're high enough up in the tree, it should be a matter of shooting straight down into its mouth. Where's the sport in that?//

re: #128 Creeping Eruption

I had a guy who used to work for me who saved all his money to take two weeks out west to bow-hunt bears. He thought hunters that used rifles were pussies.

But at least they are live pussies.

my former civil procedure professor wrote an article for cnn about "wise latina-gate." she was and is, a very jaded hispanic feminist. the article is an interesting discussion on the comments and on subjective semantics if anything.

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

She just said it was the role of the courts to interpret the law. What a radical. ///

re: #134 LGoPs

But at least they are live pussies.

LOL

re: #126 lawhawk

The 2d Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is separate and distinct from the right of self defense, which is a common law concept. There is overlap between the two, since you can use firearms as self defense but there is no right to self defense in the US Constitution.

Exactly -- that question was simply more meaningless grandstanding.

re: #50 WinterCat

I don't think the Republicans shot themselves in the foot. Sotomayor has made a number of comments in speeches that required examination. I do think that Graham was absolutely dead on when he said, had he made the same comment as her "wise Latina" remark, he would be history. This is a disparity that concerns me greatly.

I haven't seen her family attacked. I haven't seen her referred to as slutty. I haven't seen the cost of her wardrobe questioned, despite her record for having a temperment issue on the bench, I haven't seen her being called a drama queen or mocked endlessly on SNL. No, I think, in general, she has had it pretty easy.

republicans are so respectful and restrained at these hearings.
in contrast look what the vicious dems have done. they are the meanest extremist in politics today. they tried to destroy alito, roberts and thomas.
not just question them, DESTROY them.
btw, clarence thomas had a much more compelling life story than soto.
the msm sure didn't fawn all over his difficult childhood and the incredible way he pulled himself up from poverty.

Regarding "Wise Latina" I think it is a valid issue.

Sotomayor stated in her testimony, when challenged on the remark, that "the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was attempting to convey."

Yet the statement (in context) was:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

So she lied. She claims her words "fell flat" but read in context, she explicitly disagrees with O'Connor's assertion that men and women have equal capacity for wisdom. In Sotomayor's speech, she claims explicitly that the life experience of a Latina is intrinsically richer than a white male's. With the help of the media and many partisans, this has all been whitewashed, but the words remain, as does the contradiction (one she would not tolerate from an attorney appearing in her court).

And it isn't a small lie or one borne of twisted words that came out wrong. Sotomayor is in the word business. That is what Judges do - interpret words as they apply them to determining when and how members of our society should be denied life, liberty and property.

re: #135 SpaceJesus

my former civil procedure professor wrote an article for cnn about "wise latina-gate." she was and is, a very jaded hispanic feminist. the article is an interesting discussion on the comments and on subjective semantics if anything.

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

Admitting you are a trained attorney? Man, you are a glutton for punishment. /

re: #126 lawhawk

The 2d Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is separate and distinct from the right of self defense, which is a common law concept. There is overlap between the two, since you can use firearms as self defense but there is no right to self defense in the US Constitution.

in other words the former implies the latter

It would be funny if someone could take video of the hearing and dub the sound track to a Peanust cartoon over it.

"Waa wa wa waa wa wa waaawa waaa."

"No teacher, I didnt forget my home work. Yes ma'am, Ill pass it forward".

re: #96 legalpad

Not those booing his roll out at the All Star Game! (you know that just had to hurt - "Whaaa, how can they not bask in the glory of my presence?" )

re: #128 Creeping Eruption

I had a guy who used to work for me who saved all his money to take two weeks out west to bow-hunt bears. He thought hunters that used rifles were pussies.

I used to give little talks about teamwork in the office. One of the points I made is the myth of the "rugged individualist" in American and that today's "rugged individualist" is tomorrow's "bear shit". Most got the point.

re: #102 Charles

Where is the "right to self defense" in the Constitution?

Opps didn't deleted the first part.

The second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms. Without going to all the links in the Federalist papers and the support documents of the framers the first two purposes of the 2nd are.
1) To resist tyranny of a government overstepping it's bounds, see the list of grievances in the Declarations.

2) Self defense, to defend ones life, liberty and yes property.

The right to self defense has been established in common law long before our Constitution, and is one of the those "self evident" rights.

She was not asked about the when and were and under what conditions that right could be exercised. Which was the question she answered.

She was asked if the Right to Self defense existed, "Do I have the right to personal self defense." Sotomayor gave a perfectly legitimate answer, but not to the question she was asked.

Self proclaimed right wing extremist...

Catherine Crabill, VA GOP Candidate: We May Have To "Resort To The Bullet Box" (VIDEO)

Catherine Crabill, the Republican Party's nominee for Virginia's 99th District in the House of Delegates, gave a speech at a recent political event suggesting that Second Amendment rights could be used to defend the anti-tax Tea Party movement. The strange assertion was picked up by Virginia political blogger Not Larry Sabato.

"We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box," Crabill said. "That's the beauty of our Second Amendment rights ... Our Second Amendment rights were to guard against tyranny."

Watch:

Crabill, who proclaims on her campaign website that "America was founded by right-wing extremists," has already drawn fire for her controversial views. Among other things, she believes the U.S. government played a role in the Oklahoma City Bombing.

Looking thru the Constitution, there is nothing explicitly allowing or denying a persons right to self defense. Which means the concept needs to fall under the 10th amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

re: #126 lawhawk

The 2d Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is separate and distinct from the right of self defense, which is a common law concept. There is overlap between the two, since you can use firearms as self defense but there is no right to self defense in the US Constitution.

Well, I think the key is the statement in the constitution about how the rights of the people are beyond what the constitution describes and the governments isn't. I've got to rush to meet some folks or I'd find the exact phrase. We the people are limited only by how the constitution limits us. The gov't has only the powers it gives them. I have the right of self-defense. Nobody gave it to me. Let them see what it costs them to try to take it away.

re: #112 Charles

The second and the fourth amendments both suggest a person is within their rights to defend themselves, but neither states a Right to Self-Defense.

I did not see Sotomayor response to the question, but if it was something like the above, she would have answered to my satisfaction. Now I'm going to search Google for her opinion...

re: #102 Charles

Where is the "right to self defense" in the Constitution?

the right to self defense doesn't have to be enumerated in the constitution.
it is one of the basic rights of survival.
natural law, that goes w/out saying.

re: #150 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

There is a very god argument that it is among the "inalienable" rights conferred on us and there is no need to enumerate or codify it.

re: #153 nyc redneck

GMTA.

re: #150 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Looking thru the Constitution, there is nothing explicitly allowing or denying a persons right to self defense. Which means the concept needs to fall under the 10th amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

exactly...

OT: 40 years since the lift off of Apollo 11!

The website [Link: wechoosethemoon.org...] shows it "live"...from 90 minutes before the start to the 21th - the landing - in "realtime" with lots of animated stuff...radio transmissions and so on

There is even an twitter-channel that relays the transmissions.

re: #142 karmic_inquisitor

She claims her words "fell flat" but read in context, she explicitly disagrees with O'Connor's assertion that men and women have equal capacity for wisdom. In Sotomayor's speech, she claims explicitly that the life experience of a Latina is intrinsically richer than a white male's.

Sorry, I cannot agree with this. Saying "I am not so sure I agree" is not the same as "explicitly disagreeing." And she did not claim that the life experience of a Latina is intrinsically richer.

In fact, in the very next paragraph she explicity contradicted that idea, and said that it WAS quite possible for judges to render good decisions despite having different backgrounds. Quote:

I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

re: #154 calcajun

PIMF Freudian half-slip/camisole; good not god.

re: #157 Joshua Cohen

Cool. Thanks for posting that.

re: #133 calcajun

Thank, you. No. I mean, if you're high enough up in the tree, it should be a matter of shooting straight down into its mouth. Where's the sport in that?//

There's a chickenshit way to do everything. If I went with you I guess we'd do knives. Have your will made out. By the way, I haven't hunted in a couple of decades. Just got tired of killing.

Only pussies use rifles? What are you supposed to use? Sling shots? Catapults? Flamethrowers?

...
Wait that could work. Catch and cook your deer all at once.

re: #147 calcajun

I used to give little talks about teamwork in the office. One of the points I made is the myth of the "rugged individualist" in American and that today's "rugged individualist" is tomorrow's "bear shit". Most got the point.

And some of us wind up with bear rugs.

/just sayin'

re: #137 buzzsawmonkey

The Declaration is pretty reading, and it did get us started on the road to independent statehood. But it has no legal standing or effect.

If we get to that stage we won't be asking a judge what to do. I'll spell it out: The Declaration justified violent revolution.

re: #154 calcajun

There is a very god argument that it is among the "inalienable" rights conferred on us and there is no need to enumerate or codify it.

An invisible right, in other words?

re: #154 calcajun

There is a very god argument that it is among the "inalienable" rights conferred on us and there is no need to enumerate or codify it.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Since these rights are unalienable, any reasonable force designed to safeguard them is justified.

Gotta go or my lunch people will eat me.

As of Wednesday morning, the senators had spouted 50,082 words. In response Judge Sotomayor had been able to utter barely 20,000 words (20,728, to be exact).

Monday was the worst day: senators 23,175, Sotomayor 942.

Time for a grass roots movement to vote against incumbents. Period. My gut feeling is that if they've served more than two terms, it's time for them to go.

Single digit percentage turnovers in Congress don't even begin to do the job that needs to be done. Throw these assholes out. They've completely forgotten that they hold office to serve, and have come to believe that they hold it to rule.

re: #161 legalpad

There's a chickenshit way to do everything. If I went with you I guess we'd do knives. Have your will made out. By the way, I haven't hunted in a couple of decades. Just got tired of killing.

me too...my internal white tail limit bagged out...I can't even imagine killing a bear for no good reason, especially with a bow

re: #161 legalpad

Didn't see the sarc tag, there didja? Lesson I learned a long time ago-- Thou shalt not screw with bears, their food, their cubs, their dens or anything that looks like it belongs to a bear..

Ya'll this is a done deal ... she is getting confirmed ... can we go to something we maybe can do something about ...

Please call your representatives and ask them NOT to vote for Obamas Universal Health Care Plan ... especially if you are in a district where a blue dog could be encouraged to vote against it ... I just got off the phone with Davis and he is suppose to vote against it ... or so his aides tell me as the vast majority of people from his district are calling and asking him to vote no ... but he has showed he has no spine before ...

Please make a phone call or fax ... it only takes a few minutes ...

Gotta go ... Hope ya'll all have a great day! ...

re: #75 realwest

Hey WinterCat - you still don't get it do you? The Democrats Leftists went for 8 years (with Bush as President) doing nothing but complaining. They offered NO positive positions or actions (although I suppose if you opposed the War in Iraq, opposing that would be "positive"). And in 2008, although the Leftists already controlled Congress, they managed to pick up the White House and bigger majorities in the House and the Senate.But when it comes to Republicans, we're supposed to do more than bitch and moan. And I don't see why; assuming that the Republicans want to regain SOME of the power of the Federal Government, I think their following the successful lead of the Leftist Party makes sense. It's not good for the country, but no one said that very often about the Leftist Party when it was "out of power" either.

Regarding what I bolded in your post, I think that is largely because many Americans were unaware that Congress had been in the Democrat's control since 2006. Not one person I ever spoke to during the election knew that. They were all so convinced that Bush screwed up everything that Change was all they wanted.

It seems like the leftist formula of protesting and shouting "racism" (even when it did not exist)" while the Republicans were in office is supposed to be off limits when the tables have been reversed. Although I absolutely don't advocate calling "racism" just to win an argument or silence the opposition as the left has done so repeatedly that it has almost become their party platform, is it wrong for the Republicans to point out issues that may be a real concern? Sotomayor's comments in context and out of context are a real concern in my view.

re: #36 Gang of One

But, what about Michael Jackson? Is he still dead?

Now they're focusing on the needle scars/scabs in old pictures of his ankles and shins.

re: #164 legalpad

Pretty much as a last resort, though. Changing governments is not done lightly.

re: #158 Charles

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

re: #166 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The operative words there are "among them" which means there's more of them.

Does anybody have a copy of her birth certificate?

re: #112 Charles
Charles - I have to say that I don't have the question(s) asked of Sotomayor on the self defense matter before me.
But the U.S. Constitution provides in the 10th Amendment that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". And the historical facts are that in English Common Law - upon which most of our Federal Law was based (we had been, after all, an English colony) there is an inherent right to self-defense. That is to say, that if a reasonable person had a right to fear for his or her life or physical safety, they had the right to defend themselves.
For Judge Sotomayor to not simply acknowledge that fact was really "bobbing and weaving" especially because the US Constitution - as "interpreted" by SCOUTUS - over rules Common Law. Hell, for that matter legislation, federal or state over rules Common Law, unless otherwise interpreted by SCOTUS or a State's highest court (as to State law).

re: #162 Mr. E. Train

Only pussies use rifles? What are you supposed to use? Sling shots? Catapults? Flamethrowers?

...
Wait that could work. Catch and cook your deer all at once.

Can I just use this? Would save a lot of time.

re: #175 tedzilla99

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Wow, I've never heard that before! She said that?!

re: #176 calcajun

The operative words there are "among them" which means there's more of them.

Ah, that must be where they hid universal healtcare, a free college education, and free internet access.

/

re: #175 tedzilla99

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

They called her on it, she said it was a poor choice of words and backed off the meaning of it. Can't really do much more with it unless you have much more similar rhetoric with a clear history of intellectually consistent opinions matching that. It's over.

re: #126 lawhawk

The 2d Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is separate and distinct from the right of self defense, which is a common law concept. There is overlap between the two, since you can use firearms as self defense but there is no right to self defense in the US Constitution.

Yes, but like privacy according to SCJ Douglas, wouldn't that considered to be part of the "penumbra" of the Constitution?

re: #177 BigPapa

Does anybody have a copy of her birth certificate?

She looks kinda "foreign"...you're right! Let's see it!!

/

re: #179 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I remember the first time I saw that vid...I'm a shotgunner and just about shat myself...can you imagine, one round down range and another out the tube...I know you do...whoa!

re: #114 Creeping Eruption
Ya mean to tell me that short sleeved shirts weren't legal until our Constitution made it so?
///

re: #177 BigPapa

Does anybody have a copy of her birth certificate?

I'd like to know who she's voted for.

///

re: #171 JacksonTn

Ya'll this is a done deal ... she is getting confirmed ... can we go to something we maybe can do something about ...

Please call your representatives and ask them NOT to vote for Obamas Universal Health Care Plan ... especially if you are in a district where a blue dog could be encouraged to vote against it ... I just got off the phone with Davis and he is suppose to vote against it ... or so his aides tell me as the vast majority of people from his district are calling and asking him to vote no ... but he has showed he has no spine before ...

Please make a phone call or fax ... it only takes a few minutes ...

Gotta go ... Hope ya'll all have a great day! ...

I live in Moonbattachusetts. Despite the devastation Obamacare will do to the health care industry (a big industry here), I can't see Tsongas, or the senators Kerry and Kennedy, voting against it.

What is her kos user name?!

re: #188 iceweasel

I'd like to know who she's voted for.

///

RON PAUL!!!

re: #188 iceweasel

I'd like to know who she's voted for.

///

Bush in the previous 2 elections, most likely.
/

re: #180 Charles

Wow, I've never heard that before! She said that?!

You typed "And she did not claim that the life experience of a Latina is intrinsically richer."

So, yes she did. Of course, your sarcasm has me running into the backyard to hide under a tree. It's getting to be a disappointing trend, whenever you're challenged.

re: #129 avanti

Exactly, like Dukakis did in '88 with his debate answer about his wife being hypothetically attacked, n'est pas? His response took him right down the tubes for average American voters.

This site has made quite a name for itself pouring of details of photos. Congratulations. It doesn't seem to be putting the same effort into reviewing the details of the Sotomayor hearings. This reference spells out a disturbing detail. She should not be confirmed

[Link: www.powerlineblog.com...]

re: #181 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oh, for the love of God-- don't go giving them ideas./

re: #193 tedzilla99

You typed "And she did not claim that the life experience of a Latina is intrinsically richer."

So, yes she did. Of course, your sarcasm has me running into the backyard to hide under a tree. It's getting to be a disappointing trend, whenever you're challenged.

No, she did not. You're distorting her words.

/no sarcasm

re: #190 Sharmuta

What is her kos user name?!

Are you now, or have you ever been, a Huffer? (commenter on HuffPo, I mean...or do I?)

re: #196 calcajun

Oh, for the love of God-- don't go giving them ideas./

Just so long as I get to keep my unalienable right to hot chicks, I'll be just fine.

re: #182 BigPapa

Much more similar rhetoric? CNN sez:

That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001.

Two to one count on senators vs. Sotomayor? What a surprise there, huh?

Leahy: Judge, let me ask you a question. As you know, the law has evolved over the centuries, going back as far as Solomon and that cutting the baby in half thing, which, as I understand it, would not be a legal precedent today, even though it probably was during the middle ages in Europe, or perhaps several Mideast countries, but that's probably a topic for another day. If you recall, English common law derived from an agreement between King Arthur and Robin Hood, and has become the basis for legal decisions right up to Kelo v New London, and certainly others I could name, but in the interest of time will pass over. The Pilgrims had their own statutes, mostly based on the concept of "grim" as it was incorporated into the name they chose for themselves, but at least the dunking stool was part and parcel of the laws they chose to bring with them in the Nina, Pinto, and Santa Anita. So, as you can see, I am much concerned with the possibility that you will accept these, and other international laws, including the code of Hammurabi, Justinian, and Silence in your deliberations. Could you comment on that for us?

Sotomayor: Senator, I don't have even the slightest clue what you just asked. Could you repeat the question?

Leahy: Probably not.

(Okay, I made that up. Or did I?)

;-)

re: #158 Charles

Her testimony states she made the remark in agreement. So perhaps my use of "explicitly disagreeing" may not be precise, I don't see how it can be interpreted as "agreeing".

Why would she have gone to the trouble of injecting the remark?

To the extent that she is trying to establish a truth value, I can't see how saying "I am not sure I agree with" constitutes agreement (which she later claimed to have been attempting).

Were you and I to make a Venn Diagram of the truth claims, we would probably have Sotomayor's circle regarding "wise latina" overlapping with O'Connor's wise man/woman truth claim. We would probably disagree on the extent to which they overlap.

What I think we could agree on is that they do not coincide. Where they don't is the very essense of her distinction on "rich life experience" that she stated as being intrinsic to lives led my members of a gender and race.

Yes - she tempers the remark by saying (as you have pointed out) that not all people outside that group are incapable of understanding the values and needs of the other group. While commendable that she acknowledges such, he original truth claim remains - that a "wise latina" is still more likely to judge better that a old white male.

I pose that her tempering of her remarks does not negate them. And I have problems with someone who, when talking about judging, finds it necessary to have an "understanding the values and needs of people" of a ethnic group in order to apply law to that group. Especially when she then testifies that she can, has and will only rule based on the law. Only in a few cases does the law make such ethnic distinctions, yet she was talking about all of judging.

re: #198 iceweasel

Are you now, or have you ever been, a Huffer? (commenter on HuffPo, I mean...or do I?)

And clean up the spray paint residue around your mouth before you answer.

re: #190 Sharmuta

What is her kos user name?!

WiseFlamingCommieLatina666 I've seen her posts, she's a raving mad moonbat, fer sure!

re: #195 monsonman

This site has ...

Here we go. It's not (x) enough so it sucks.

Stinky is working his mendacity issues, give the shrinks some time. Please. Thank you.

re: #200 SlartyBartfast

Much more similar rhetoric? CNN sez:

a bitter, ethnic clinger

re: #195 monsonman

This site has made quite a name for itself pouring of details of photos. Congratulations. It doesn't seem to be putting the same effort into reviewing the details of the Sotomayor hearings. This reference spells out a disturbing detail. She should not be confirmed

[Link: www.powerlineblog.com...]

You're insane. There's been extensive coverage here of the hearings, and links to the live streaming have been posted every single day.

There is more coverage here than anywhere, except perhaps SCOTUSblog, of the hearings. And here you get more commentary/a larger and more diverse commentariat.

re: #139 Charles

It's not meaningless grandstanding if you want to see if Sotomayor will attempt to find such a right in the Constitution. Some of the questions are more... nuanced. It's a fishing expedition of sorts to see whether Sotomayor will find rights not enumerated in the US Constitution, or how her view of already enumerated rights meshes with existing legal theories.

I know what the Senators are trying to get at, but they aren't doing a very good job of it. They want to see what her judicial philosophy is, and as Ginsberg already set the tone with refusing to answer any such questions, leaves everyone in the dark about judicial philosophy.

Oh, for pity's sake, just start repeating to yourselves the words:

Madame Justice Sotomayor

It's tough at first, but it will come naturally soon enough. Just swallow your vomit and soon the words will roll off the tongue.//

Seriously-- this is a done deal. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a problem with reality.

re: #203 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And clean up the spray paint residue around your mouth before you answer.

That's hilarious! I got nuthin. :)

re: #183 WinterCat

Yes, but like privacy according to SCJ Douglas, wouldn't that considered to be part of the "penumbra" of the Constitution?

No. The right doesn't emanate from the Constitution in any way; it exists on it's own in common law. The Constitution simply steps out of the way of such existing precedent and allows it to stand; it doesn't create the right, explicitly or implicitly.

And as I pointed out in an earlier thread - so what? The GOP has succeeded in making themselves look like laughable buffoons by spending the entire first half of the week fixated on the "wise Latina" BS, attempting to construct a straw man and knock it down and succeeding only in making themselves look stupid and petty. Anything and everything they care to bring up at this point is fatally tainted by their earlier behavior, and will be instantly dismissed as simply more grandstanding spin regardless of any actual merits their arguments may possess.

They had absolutely no discernible strategy going into these hearings, and their disorganization and incoherence has cost them dearly, not only here but in subsequent hearings to come on any number of matters. They have willingly donned the Mantle of No, and have marginalized themselves nearly out of existence. In fact, I'm beginning to wish that they would simply stop showing up in Congress; they might advance their cause - if they have one - a lot more effectively if they didn't keep putting themselves in the spotlight, complete with foot in mouth displaying a fresh, self-inflicted bullet wound in it.

re: #158 Charles

in the very next paragraph she explicity contradicted that idea, and said that it WAS quite possible for judges to render good decisions despite having different backgrounds

That is the critical part of this. She, like so many, can argue both sides of an argument. Many times in speeches, one would use that ability to stay interesting...

re: #157 Joshua Cohen

OT: 40 years since the lift off of Apollo 11!

The website [Link: wechoosethemoon.org...] shows it "live"...from 90 minutes before the start to the 21th - the landing - in "realtime" with lots of animated stuff...radio transmissions and so on

There is even an twitter-channel that relays the transmissions.

It says that it's best viewed with Firefox 3.5. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Take that, Microsoft. I remember a little bit about the mission; mainly when they landed on the moon on Sunday afternoon, and set foot on the moon on Sunday night.

re: #197 Charles

No, she did not. You're distorting her words.

/no sarcasm

No, I'm not. When she says that the wise Latina woman would reach a better conclusion, she is saying that the richness of her experiences is the difference between her and the white judge. It's really that simple and really no other way to read it. And she has said similar things on many other occasions, so it can't be judged as a one-off comment.

re: #210 calcajun

Oh, for pity's sake, just start repeating to yourselves the words:

It's tough at first, but it will come naturally soon enough. Just swallow your vomit and soon the words will roll off the tongue.//

Seriously-- this is a done deal. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a problem with reality.

I can deal with this better than President Barack Obama.
At least she's replacing another liberal.

re: #195 monsonman

Maybe you ought to try comparing law centric sites like Powerline, which is run by actual lawyers, with other websites doing similar work. It's unfair to Charles to make that comparison, even though Charles has run at least one thread a day on the confirmations (which is more than I've actually done with my blog).

re: #208 buzzsawmonkey

So laying back on the hip and puffing the "should not" opium pipe, however much dreamy fun it may be, is simply a waste of time.

Nicely put.

40 years since Chappequidick (but I haven't seen anything in the media commemorating it).

re: #219 karmic_inquisitor

40 years since Chappequidick (but I haven't seen anything in the media commemorating it).

Maybe Discovery could re-run the Mythbusters on how to get out of a submerged car.

re: #183 WinterCat

No, that would be an emanation. /just slightly.

Seriously, I don't get the penumbra and emanations theory of reading rights from the US Constitution that aren't there. Either the right is there, or it isn't. If it isn't obvious on a plain reading of the language of the Constitution, it isn't there.

That's my take, but your mileage (and that of the various justices of the US S.Ct.) will vary.

re: #220 Kosh's Shadow

hahahahahaha

re: #184 buzzsawmonkey
I know where you were trying to go with that and I agree with you.
But to me, the Declaration of Independence is one of the finest documents ever written about the rights of people.
And while the Declaration itself has no legal "meaning" King George, were he alive today, would severely disagree with you. The Declaration was really the stated JUSTIFICATION for the formation of the United States of America, separate and distinct from England. To King George, however, it was a treasonous document that called on English subjects to commit treason and LEAVE England. And frankly he was correct!
And I thank God everyday that our forefathers were indeed traitors to the English Crown.

re: #200 SlartyBartfast

Much more similar rhetoric? CNN sez:

OK, so she said it more than once, Is she using the same speech? Is her meaning of that statement showing up in her rulings, clearly?

It's not enough, sorry. We have to deal with it. She thinks in terms of race and it concerns me, but there's not enough to sink her. There's not compelling evidence she always rules that way.

re: #141 nyc redneck

You left out - Estrada, Bush's "latino" candidate for SCOTUS. Dems destroyed him, so they could be the first to put the L jurist on the Court and reap the votes. "The problem with politics - is Politics!"

This is not about derailing her appointment. Her confirmation is a done deal. This is about making her record and philosophy absolutely clear. It is also the Democrat game of "sending her up there with scars" as they did with Clarence Thomas.

This is the hardball so many of you/us say we want to see.
How do you like it so far?

re: #215 tedzilla99

Indeed, as Charles pointed out, "...it WAS quite possible for judges to render good decisions despite having different backgrounds."

However, as Dianne Feinstein said, "Well, there's one word, Bob, in the statement and it's the word 'better' -- that a Latina woman who's gone through these experiences, that her views would be better."

Sure, your's are good...mine are better!

OMG, I can't believe I'm quoting wacko Feinstein to make a point!

re: #202 karmic_inquisitor

The entire speech was examining the very issue of how much a judge's background and life experiences influence decisions. That was the purpose of the speech. I've read the entire thing several times, and in my opinion that sentence has been taken WAY out of context of the whole speech, which does not make the overall point that "Latinas are smarter and better than everyone else."

The entire speech is almost 4000 words long, and she's being attacked over 32 of those words, even though she explicitly, repeatedly qualifies those 32 words in that very speech.

And she's now clarified this point over and over and over in these hearings, and said she phrased that one dreaded sentence badly.

re: #198 iceweasel

Are you now, or have you ever been, a Huffer? (commenter on HuffPo, I mean...or do I?)

Tsk. Softball question.

Have you stopped being a Huffer?!

fify, ice. :-)

re: #195 monsonman

This site has made quite a name for itself pouring of details of photos. Congratulations. It doesn't seem to be putting the same effort into reviewing the details of the Sotomayor hearings. This reference spells out a disturbing detail. She should not be confirmed

[Link: www.powerlineblog.com...]

Unless they got pictures of her being friendly with a goat or some unknown ruling comes out that where she wants round up all the gringos and ship them back to Europe, she is going to get confirmed. We just have to deal with it. We do not have to like it. Can she be as bad as Justice Ginsberg? I hope not. Will she be about the same as having Souter sitting there? Probably.

As he likes to point out, Obama won...so, he gets to nominate. The Dems were mean and nasty and outrageous, but they still confirmed MOST of the nominees the Republicans have put up there. Now, we have to take our medicine and confirm her. If more Republicans got motivated last election, President McCain would be nominating someone right now...and, the Dems would be going crazy...but, they would still confirm.

OT: Fox News is running the story that you can get energy from onion waste. I wonder if it smells like fried onions?

That is an energy source I could get behind.

re: #219 karmic_inquisitor

40 years since Chappequidick (but I haven't seen anything in the media commemorating it).

It's probably the only thing that kept Teddy out of the White House.

re: #220 Kosh's Shadow

Maybe Discovery could re-run the Mythbusters on how to get out of a submerged car.

Even better.

re: #12 _RememberTonyC

here's a photo of Judge Sotomayor before she changed careers

[Link: www.moonbattery.com...]

Not so funny.

re: #215 tedzilla99

Did you not read #158?

Is it me, or is her command of the English language sort of Bush like? I think if the Dems were against her the press would focus on her intelligence and suddenly find it lacking.

re: #216 Kosh's Shadow

Agreed-- I'm still hopin' she's the "reverse" Souter.

We're also coming up on the 40th anniversary of Judy Garland's death.

re: #225 Picayune

You left out - Estrada, Bush's "latino" candidate for SCOTUS. Dems destroyed him, so they could be the first to put the L jurist on the Court and reap the votes. "The problem with politics - is Politics!"

He was nominated for a Circuit Judgeship, IIRC, not the SCOTUS. But, they did lay on the heavy smear job with him.

re: #231 Buck

OT: Fox News is running the story that you can get energy from onion waste. I wonder if it smells like fried onions?

That is an energy source I could get behind.

No, that is an energy that should stay behind us.

re: #237 buster

Is it me, or is her command of the English language sort of Bush like? I think if the Dems were against her the press would focus on her intelligence and suddenly find it lacking.

If she was a Republican appointee, she would be a "moron".

Returned from connecting another computer to the web to follow the Apollo 11 mission on it (notebook...own display...located beside the usual one.)
A older switch and a Cat5 cable came handy.
Oh and this is even one approved for use in the space shuttle ;)

Hope the will not tax me for rising my CO2 footprint.

re: #240 Ward Cleaver

We're also coming up on the 40th anniversary of Judy Garland's death.

I sense a lot of "fabulous" memorials coming up./

re: #236 Sharmuta

Did you not read #158?

I've read the entire speech, as well as the others. Bye.

re: #229 jvic

Tsk. Softball question.

Have you stopped being a Huffer?!

fify, ice. :-)

hey baby! S'up?

Had a comment for you in re: G-S-- basically it was, I agree with you that they're not the only malefactors. :)

re: #212 SixDegrees

They had absolutely no discernible strategy going into these hearings, and their disorganization and incoherence has cost them dearly, not only here but in subsequent hearings to come on any number of matters. They have willingly donned the Mantle of No, and have marginalized themselves nearly out of existence. In fact, I'm beginning to wish that they would simply stop showing up in Congress; they might advance their cause - if they have one - a lot more effectively if they didn't keep putting themselves in the spotlight, complete with foot in mouth displaying a fresh, self-inflicted bullet wound in it.

No disrespect, but what specifically strategy would have been satisfactory? I am asking in ernest and don't want to come off as snide here. I can't see anything else they could have done. First, they will not have any impact on the outcome. They know that. They have sifted through her cases and have come up with the areas that needed airing -- that is to say, her comments on and off the record. I don't think that was the wrong thing to do. True all if it will amount to zip in the long run since the Democrats will have her because they have the votes. What else should/could the Rs have done?

re: #233 Ward Cleaver

It's probably the only thing that kept Teddy out of the White House.

That, and at least 50% of the US seeing him as nothing more than an Alcoholic Piece of Shit Murderer who walked because of his Daddy's name.

re: #243 SurferDoc

If she was a Republican appointee, she would be a "moron" "moran".

If people don't know why I changed that, I'm not linking. :)

(silly stuff)

re: #193 tedzilla99
"Of course, your [Charles] sarcasm has me running into the backyard to hide under a tree. It's getting to be a disappointing trend, whenever you're challenged."
Oh don't be silly. Charles isn't going to ban you or hurl insults at you because you disagree with him, as long as,you know, you disagree in a respectful way.
As for sarcasm, I suspect very strongly that Charles can take it as well as he dishes it out. It's what we call debating differences of opinion and Charles is good at it and allows other to do the same. Sheeesh.

re: #143 Creeping Eruption

Admitting you are a trained attorney? Man, you are a glutton for punishment. /

um, no? civ pro is a first year class. I'm still in law school.

re: #237 buster

Is it me, or is her command of the English language sort of Bush like? I think if the Dems were against her the press would focus on her intelligence and suddenly find it lacking.

It's not just you. Rush just did a segment on several mistakes she made.

It would only matter if she had been appointed by a Republican. (I wish I could say I'm kidding.)

re: #223 realwest

I think of the meeting between Franklin, Rutledge and Adams with Admiral Howe on Staten Island. Howe had orders and a list of colonists to whom clemency would be granted if they stopped the Revolution. Rutledge and Franklin were to be spared. Adams, however, would have been hanged.

re: #233 Ward Cleaver

It's probably the only thing that kept Teddy out of the White House.

"If Ted Kennedy had owned a Volkswagon, he'd be President today."

Caption from a National Lampoon advertisement spoof showing a floating Volkswagon, part of VW's US ad campaign when it was run. The ad was attacked by Kennedy family lawyers, and National Lampoon was forced to remove the page it was on by hand in order to service standing orders. A few subscribers received early mailings containing the ad, and word spread from there.

re: #253 capitalist piglet

*cough*whatdoublestandard*cough*

What are some of her right-leaning decisions?

re: #252 SpaceJesus

um, no? civ pro is a first year class. I'm still in law school.

Oh thank God-- there's still time. Don't do it! Run! Save yourself before you turn into...ME./

re: #195 monsonman
Huh.

monsonman

---

Karma: -9
Registered since: Jul 16, 2007 at 6:56 pm
(Logged in)

No. of comments posted: 15
No. of links posted: 0
Recent comments

I feel for ya Charles - some of these sleepers are REALLY good at what they do!

re: #209 lawhawk

It's not meaningless grandstanding if you want to see if Sotomayor will attempt to find such a right in the Constitution. Some of the questions are more... nuanced. It's a fishing expedition of sorts to see whether Sotomayor will find rights not enumerated in the US Constitution, or how her view of already enumerated rights meshes with existing legal theories.

I know what the Senators are trying to get at, but they aren't doing a very good job of it. They want to see what her judicial philosophy is, and as Ginsberg already set the tone with refusing to answer any such questions, leaves everyone in the dark about judicial philosophy.

Although this is not the first time SC nominees have done this. At Roberts confirmation hearing for example, he stated quite clearly that he didn't want to discuss any issues that were likely to come up again before the supreme court.

OT, but intersting:

4 Killed, At Least 8 Wounded In 6-Hour Bloodbath

Baghdad? Kabul? Somalia? Pakistan? China? India? Iran? Venezuela?

Nope.

Chicago.

This in a city with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Oh that's right, only the law abiding citizens are...law abiding.

How's that gun control thing workin' out again Daley?

re: #259 buzzsawmonkey

Gluttons for Punishment had a very nice representation at this year's New York Pride Parade.

The entire contingent consisted of overweight people in black leather.

I missed that on the news...thank god

Morning/Afternoon lizards.

Do you want to play a game? Check this out.

ObamaCard Project

A young republican in the RNC New Media Department created a funky, little game for Young Republicans to borrow and spend like President Obama. Mentioned by New Media Director, Todd Herman in Indiana after Chairman Steele spoke at the Young Republican National Convention in Indianapolis, the Obama spending toy lets Young Republican chapters from around the country compete to see who can reach the $3.4 trillion limit set by our current president.

The New Media team is completely focused on launching the new web platform and infrastructure, but to keep our sanity we let a team member put together this fun little application. Instructions for use can be found here, the application his here, and we hope you enjoy!

re: #221 lawhawk

No, that would be an emanation. /just slightly.

Seriously, I don't get the penumbra and emanations theory of reading rights from the US Constitution that aren't there. Either the right is there, or it isn't. If it isn't obvious on a plain reading of the language of the Constitution, it isn't there.

That's my take, but your mileage (and that of the various justices of the US S.Ct.) will vary.